Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 333–363 | Cite as

Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents' and Adults' Capacities as Trial Defendants

  • Thomas Grisso
  • Laurence Steinberg
  • Jennifer Woolard
  • Elizabeth Cauffman
  • Elizabeth Scott
  • Sandra Graham
  • Fran Lexcen
  • N. Dickon Reppucci
  • Robert Schwartz


Abilities associated with adjudicative competence were assessed among 927 adolescents in juvenile detention facilities and community settings. Adolescents' abilities were compared to those of 466 young adults in jails and in the community. Participants at 4 locations across the United States completed a standardized measure of abilities relevant for competence to stand trial (the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool—Criminal Adjudication) as well as a new procedure for assessing psychosocial influences on legal decisions often required of defendants (MacArthur Judgment Evaluation). Youths aged 15 and younger performed more poorly than young adults, with a greater proportion manifesting a level of impairment consistent with that of persons found incompetent to stand trial. Adolescents also tended more often than young adults to make choices (e.g., about plea agreements) that reflected compliance with authority, as well as influences of psychosocial immaturity. Implications of these results for policy and practice are discussed, with an emphasis on the development of legal standards that recognize immaturity as a potential predicate of incompetence to stand trial.

adolescence legal competence delinquency juvenile justice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abramovitch, R., Peterson-Badali, J., & Rohan, M. (1995). Young people's understanding and assertion of their rights to silence and legal counsel. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 1–18.Google Scholar
  2. Bonnie, R. (1992). The competence of criminal defendants: A theoretical reformulation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 291–316.Google Scholar
  3. Bonnie, R. (1993). The competence of criminal defendants: Beyond Dusky and Drope. Miami Law Review, 47, 539–601.Google Scholar
  4. Bonnie, R., & Grisso, T. (2000). Adjudicative competence and youthful offenders. In T. Grisso & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (pp. 73–103). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, D. (1997). Juveniles' understanding of trial-related information: Are they competent defendants? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 167–180.Google Scholar
  6. Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 741–760. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).Google Scholar
  7. Fagan, J., & Zimring, F. (Eds.). (2000). The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993).Google Scholar
  9. Grisso, T. (1980). Juveniles' capacities to waive Miranda rights: An empirical analysis. California Law Review, 68, 1134–1166.Google Scholar
  10. Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles' waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  11. Grisso, T. (1997). The competence of adolescents as trial defendants. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 3–32.Google Scholar
  12. Grisso, T. (2000). What we know about youths' capacities as trial defendants. In T. Grisso & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (pp. 139–171). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grisso, T. (2002). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.Google Scholar
  14. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. (1998). Assessing competence to consent to treatment: A guide for physicians and other health care professionals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Grisso, T., & Barnum, R. (2000). Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument—Second Version: User's manual and technical report. Worcester: University of Massachusetts Medical School.Google Scholar
  16. Grisso, T., Barnum, R., Fletcher, K., Cauffman, E., & Peuschold, D. (2001). Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument for mental health needs of juvenile justice youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 541–548.Google Scholar
  17. Grisso, T., & Schwartz, R. (Eds.). (2000). Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hollingshead, A. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New Haven, CT: Department of Sociology, Yale University.Google Scholar
  19. In the Matter of W.A.F., 573 A2d 1264 (D.C. 1990).Google Scholar
  20. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972).Google Scholar
  21. Keating, D. (1990). Adolescent thinking. In S. Feldman and G. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 54–89). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 538 (1971).Google Scholar
  23. Mumley, D., Tillbrook, C., & Grisso, T. (in press). Five year research update (1996–2000): Evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence). Behavioral Sciences and the Law. Google Scholar
  24. Ohio v. Settles, 13-97-50 (1998) Ohio App. LEXIS 4973 (Ohio App. 3rd Sept. 30, 1998).Google Scholar
  25. Otto, R., Poythress, N., Edens, N., Nicholson, R., Monahan, J., Bonnie, R., Hoge, S., & Eisenberg, M. (1998). Psychometric properties of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication. Psychological Assessment, 10, 435–443.Google Scholar
  26. Peterson-Badali, M., & Abramovitch, R. (1993). Grade related changes in young people's reasoning about plea decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 537–552.Google Scholar
  27. Peterson-Badali, M., Abramovitch, R., & Duda, J. (1997). Young children's legal knowledge and reasoning ability. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39, 145–170.Google Scholar
  28. Poythress, N., Nicholson, R., Otto, R., Edens, J., Bonnie, R., Monahan, J., & Hoge, S. (1999). The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool—Criminal Adjudication: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  29. Psychological Corporation. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corportation.Google Scholar
  30. Redding, R., & Frost, L. (2002). Adjudicative competence in the modern juvenile court. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 9, 353–410.Google Scholar
  31. Scott, E. (1992). Judgment and reasoning in adolescent decision making. Villanova Law Review, 37, 1607–1669.Google Scholar
  32. Scott, E., Reppucci, N., & Woolard, J. (1995). Evaluating adolescent decision-making in legal contexts. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 221–244.Google Scholar
  33. Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  34. Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  35. Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1996). Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 249–272.Google Scholar
  36. Torbet, P., Gable, R., Hurst, H., Montgomery, I., Szymanski, L., & Thomas, D. (1996). State responses to serious and violent juvenile crime. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  37. Woolard, J. (1998). Developmental aspects of judgment and competence in legally relevant contexts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Psychology Department, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
  38. Woolard, J., Fried, C., & Reppucci, N. (2001). Toward an expanded definition of adolescent competence in legal situations. In R. Roesch, R. Corrado, & R. Dempster (Eds.), Psychology in the courts: International advances in knowledge (pp. 21–40). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Grisso
    • 1
  • Laurence Steinberg
    • 2
  • Jennifer Woolard
    • 3
  • Elizabeth Cauffman
    • 4
  • Elizabeth Scott
    • 5
  • Sandra Graham
    • 6
  • Fran Lexcen
    • 1
  • N. Dickon Reppucci
    • 7
  • Robert Schwartz
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcester
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphia
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyGeorgetown UniversityWashington
  4. 4.Western Psychiatric Institute and ClinicUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh
  5. 5.School of LawUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesville
  6. 6.Graduate School of Education and Information StudiesUniversity of California – Los AngelesLos Angeles
  7. 7.Department of PsychologyUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesville
  8. 8.Juvenile Law CenterPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations